The Basilica of San Vitale

The Basilica of San Vitale is the point where Christianity, which had originally emerged as a non-visual/non-iconographic religion, became harmonized with the late period antique art and Roman mosaics to form classical middle age Christian art and iconography. Mosaics of Basilica can be referred neither as the early period Christian art nor as the late period antique Roman art. The magnificent one thousand five hundred years-old mosaics on its walls symbolize a transition. Stories we will see for one thousand years after the Old and New Testaments, in the hands of the artists whose names we do not know began to find shape here in Ravenna. Whereas the Christian church fathers, who appeared in their togas among the flowers, trees and birds of the antique pagan art, told the people of Ravenna about the new ruler of “Sky”, the Christ; Emperor Justinian, who was pictured in purple clothes with a crown on his head, called himself as the new ruler of “Earth”.

Ravenna is a small coastal town at northeast of Italy where you can reach in 3 hours from Florence by car. From 5^th to 7^th centuries, it was used as the capital of Western Roman Empire and then, Italian State of the Byzantine for a small period. This was how it came to possess this masterpiece, the Basilica of San Vitale and those magnificent and astonishing mosaics. 

The Basilica of San Vitale was named after Saint Vitalis. Its construction started in 526, when Ravenna was under the control of Ostrogoths. The rich Greek banker Julis Argentarius financed the basilica. One of the main properties of the basilica, which was constructed on an octagonal base, is that, its throne and reception rooms were similar to Chrysotriklinos part of the Great Palace in Constantinopolis, which have been vanished without a trace. If Chrysotriklinos had managed to survive today, it would be at where Topkapı Palace is today and it would most probably be much more beautiful and flamboyant than that, as its mosaics would be the same style as the ones in San Vitale but this time, they would be inside the throne room of the Great Palace in Constantinopolis.

Wall mosaics at Arian Baptistery/ Naked Jesus Christ is 

being  baptised in a river, the Pagan God of Rivers, 

Okeanos is  on his right

The parts of Basilica that have survived today are the apse and altar found on the right side of the Basilica that is engraved with mosaics. As I have mentioned at the beginning of the article, these mosaics have Pagan features. In this regard, you can find a unique Pagan-Christian hybrid art in Ravenna. In the dome of the Arian Baptistery, which is 500 meters away from the Basilica, Jesus Christ is pictured as naked in a river. John the Baptist is on his left side and Pagan God of River, Okeanos is on the right. After that, we do not see such a mixture of Pagan-Christian art in the Middle Age. In the following centuries, Pagan times would be cursed as times of perversion and its traces would be removed from Christian iconography in time. Referring back to our Basilica, San Vitale, we can see several peacocks on the mosaics of its walls as common in Orthodox churches. As well as the several popular stories of Cain and Abel and the prophets Isaac and Abraham from Old and New Testaments, on the arch of the first part of the altar at the right, towns of two Abrahamic religions are pictured in representation of all humanity; there is Jerusalem representing the Jews and on the opposite, there is Bethlehem representing the new Christians. The message intended to be given with the 12 men’s mosaics representing the 12 Israeli tribes and the Moses next to those mosaics is clear: the Moses, who had been law-maker with his famous 10 commandments was now replaced by the new law-maker Roman empires and all societies (Christian and Jewish) were living under the command of Roman Empire.

Mosaics of the Emperor Justinian and his wife Theodora, which are the very source of the fame of the Basilica, are on the altar of the structure. One has goose bumps when looking at the faces of the couple who have been on the mosaics in Italy for 1500 years, are also from Istanbul. In my previous articles, you can find information on the most interesting couple of not only the Byzantine but also Roman history.

Emperor Justinian is in the middle in his purple clothes, Commander Belisarius  and soldiers on his right, Banker Argentarius, Bishop Maksimianus and clergymen on his left, respectively

Justinian and Belisarius duo expanded the lands of empire significantly, just like the old days they took over Italy and almost all of the Northern Africa. Thanks to the duo, Rome managed to take the Mediterranean region under control for the last time in its history (By the way, as Romans had ruled the Mediterranean region for centuries, they called the Mediterranean Sea “Mare Nostrum”, which meant “Our Sea”). Although Justinian had Belisarius judged for fraud and sent him to jail for a few years as he thought he had gained too much power, he restored his honour and gave him a place in his palace. Justinian and Theodora are buried under today’s Fatih Mosque whereas Belisarius and Antonina are buried in Kadıköy.

Empress Theodora in the middle, her guards on her right,

Antonina and bridesmaids on her left

On the right side columns of the altar; Justinian is pictured with the soldiers on his right and the clergymen on his left; Theodora is just on his opposite with her bridesmaids. Chief Commander Belisarius in on the right of Justinian, Ravenna’s most supreme religious official, the Bishop Maksimianus is on his left. Financer of the Basilica, the banker Julius Argentarius is between Maksimianus and Justinian but at the back. As Argentarius used his money to find a place for himself in the picture, he looks weirdly shy, almost irrelevant. On the opposite, the wife of Belisarius, Antonina is next to Theodora. Thanks to these magnificent mosaics, now we know how Justinian, Theodora, Belisarius and Antonina looked like. I think Byzantine mosaics are kind of funny in that, the feet of people look like they are on air, stepping on each other. You can see the same flying feet on the walls of the Chora Church in Istanbul. 

Click here for Turkish

John Locke and Liberalism

When I first took "The Second Treatise of Government" in my hand, I was disappointed because of its size; I had difficulty in believing that this small book of about 100 pages in fact altered the course of history. Evidently, I guess one expects such an important book to possess more grandeur. But after reading this small book, it also influenced me so much that I wrote this article about it. For all things or people we dub today as "liberal" (and I am one of them), almost everything we know about parliamentary democracy or civil rights began with the said book by John Locke.

Locke gives us the modern state with its contemporary meaning, it moves onwards from the secular path caved by Niccolo Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes but carries Enlightenment to a point that could never be envisaged by them. At an age where the entire Europe was governed by absolute monarchies that claimed to be vested with divine authorities, Locke's thesis that started with the explanation of “Natural law” continued with the claim that all people are equal and that everybody possesses three basic and indispensable rights, which are namely "life, liberty and property". Thomas Jefferson will later incorporate these three components into the “Declaration of Liberty” and render Locke one of founding fathers of United States America (“USA”).

Locke was born in 1632 in Bristol, England in a puritan family; his father was a country lawyer that fought for the Parliament during the English Civil War.  Locke began to study scholastic philosophy in Oxford University but he didn't like the subject much; he shows more interest towards empirical philosophy and the contemporary philosophers of the age like Descartes, and this interest of him will later push him into medicine. Locke looked for a career and in 1667 moved into Shaftesbury's home at Exeter House in London and served as his personal physician. When Lord Shaftesbury was put into trial on the grounds that he was involved in the "Rye House Conspiracy" against King Charles the II; Locke consequently thought that his life was in danger and fled to the Netherlands in 1683 and stayed there until 1688, until the Glorious Revolution when William took the crown. 1689, he published “The Second Treatise of Government” anonymously. The book did not attract much attention at the beginning, and half a century would be needed for the disclosure of its impact.

It would be wise to begin from “The First Treatise of Government” before discussing about “The Second Treatise of Government”. Locke wrote this book in response to "Patriarcha; the Natural Rights of Kings" by Sir Robert Filmer; in sum, the book is a counter-thesis to Patriarcha. Filmer, who was declared Chavelier by Charles the First and who was awarded by a fortune, is more royalist than the king, so to say. He claims that he is of David's descendants, to whom God gave ruling authority, and that therefore, he possesses an unquestionable and divine governing right on his citizens.  Locke's first treatise is a criticism of the theses contained in Patriarcha and throughout his entire book, Locke responds to Filmer's thesis beginning with the fact that nobody could truly know David's descendants. In the first treatise, Locke explains why absolute monarchy is wrong and in the second treatise he explained what should replace absolute monarchy with a plain and concise language. The second treatise can be summarized with the following main headings.

Natural Thesis of Law, the Hobbesian and Lockean Approaches

The Second Recital begins with the "Natural Law" thesis. Natural Law is a hypothesis that is based on people's lives during the primitive life on earth, before States emerged. In natural life, the primitive person has the right to punish others that harm him or his property. The Concept of State means that the primitive person has, and within a social agreement, transferred to the State the rights he owns for punishing personally. Hobbes handled this subject shortly before Locke and whereas these two philosophers shared the same opinion on the people's right of natural life and citizens' transfer of their "personal punishment" right to the State, they nevertheless diverged on the most fundamental issue. In Leviathan, which describes the pre-State life where natural law prevailed, Hobbes describes this life as "short, brutish and nasty"; according to Hobbes, people were in a full state of war before the introduction of the State.  Only a State under the iron fist of an authoritarian leader can, and through absolute monarchy, govern these wild people who incessantly fight with each other. On the contrary, Locke defines the pre-State primitive life as "peaceful and calm", meaning that people only fight back when they are attacked within the natural life and in exchange, they generally pursue a peaceful life. At this point, the Hobbesian philosophy that advocates absolute monarchy and the Lockean philosophy that advocates liberalism diverge from each other. Despite the 300 years' period elapsed since then, the foundation of all conservative and liberalist regimes is based on the assumption that questions whether wars & chaos or order & peace will prevail if people are set free. Still today in the United States of America, the Republicans has a Hobbesian philosophy and a conservative approach, Democrats pursue a Lockean and liberalist approach. In fact this fundamental separation, meaning the doctrine of natural law, and the converse positions taken by Hobbes and Locke, represent today the main belief behind the policies of all conservative and liberalist regimes & parties in the entire globe, not just the USA.

The Legitimacy of the Government

In the second treatise, Locke states that governments are only legitimate if and only if those being ruled give their consent, the governments exist for protecting the liberty of their citizens. This may seem very natural to us now, but when we consider the year when this was said, we can understand the importance of this event; who knows what the French King Louis the XIV^th, who said "l'état c'est moi" ("I'm the state"), thought when he heard about this thesis of Locke, or how furious the British King Charles the II^nd got when he read that his rule depended on the consent of people. This was one dangerous and revolutionist phrase that could be worded for the 17th Century. 

Three fundamental and inalienable rights: life, liberty and property:

Locke continues his thesis on natural law with the assertion that all people are equal and they possess three fundamental and inalienable rights. Rights of life, liberty and property. Later, Thomas Jefferson will incorporate these 3 rights into the US Constitution as "Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness". We may even see the second treatise as "the Capitalist Manifest" in that it considers property as one of most basic human rights. Deeming ethical "property ownership and trade", which was on the contrary considered "unethical" by the Church during the middle ages, the emergence of a trading community, Locke's legitimization of the property and property accumulation rights (savings and creation of capital) as the most basic humans right in the 17th century will altogether lay the foundation, on which Adam Smith will base the Wealth of Nations in the 18th century, meaning the foundations of the modern economy. According to Locke "God has given the world to the industrious and rational". All these will inscribe Locke’s name into history, and will constitute the first steps that lead to the "Night Watchman State", which will become the foundation of the libertarian view in the future; the State only exists for protecting the liberties, lives and properties of the citizens, it has no other authority or duty and the best State is therefore the smallest one.

Franklin, Adams and Jefferson working on the Declaration of Independence

 (Jean Leon Ferri, 1900)

Criticism of the Treatise

Personally, my biggest challenge with the Second Treatise is that Locke tried to explain everything through revelation. During Locke's years in Oxford, he was called the monument of silence because even his closest friends did not know his political views. It makes perfect sense; If you have very sharp and bold views that can cost your life, you may choose to keep them to yourself. Let alone, Locke wrote down what he thought, even anonymously. You may feel a bit strange when you are reading Locke, Sometime Locke may seem to take back what he had just said in the previous page while trying to support his ideas with revelations.

Let's touch upon the most important criticisms on the contents; surely, the first criticism is that Locke only defended the rights of the property-owner middle class, of which he was also a member. Maybe the disappointing point for Locke's readers is not the book's contents but Locke's personal life: As Locke wrote all these liberalist lines, he was a partner of a company that conducts slave trade from Africa to America (what I do right now is called "Ad Hominem", and it’s definitely wrong, whatsoever...). Another point that should be discussed about is the extreme importance attached by Locke to property; from the current set of values possessed by an ordinary US citizen and even from the US Laws in effect, you can see the importance of property.

As I mentioned in the beginning of this article, Locke is the very person expressly writing that all people are equal and have the rights of life, liberty and property, and the government's main duty is to protect these rights. This will alone enable him to alter world's entire history; but Locke does not stop at this point, he states in his thesis that a legitimate government can only be formed by the consent of those being ruled and if the citizens believe that the Ruler abuses his authorities, they can then revolt, and concludes by stating the segregation of duties for the first time in history (as opposed to the general belief, he has done this before Montesquieu). So that the genie is now out of the bottle and Locke has prepared the foundations of enlightenment related to the political philosophy; the French and American Revolutions will take place in the following centuries, the American Constitution of 1787 will be based on Locke's principles, the absolute monarchies in Europe will be collapsed one-by-one, and relying on the liberalist principles of Locke, first constitutional monarchies and later modern states based on parliamentary democracy will be established.

Click here for Turkish

On Political Philosophy and Freedoms

If only we were able to resolve political discussions, which probably makes up most of the discussions, by saying that “I am right in this issue because Socrates says …” or “This is the right thing to do because Marx wrote…”, but we can’t. Thank God we can’t. Taking Plato’s “Republic” as the starting point, discussions on what the best regime is, what makes a government legitimate, who shall make the laws, or most significantly, who will educate the students and according to what, haven’t been resolved for the last 2400 years, they are only getting improved and shaped with each philosopher. This might be the reason why political philosophy is so different and interesting for an engineer like me, who has been trained with numbers and single correct answers: political philosophy has no single correct answers, indeed.

Obviously books that were written centuries ago cannot answer today’s questions; we read philosophers not for the answers they gave centuries ago but for the questions they asked. Plato and Aristotle, who witnessed temporary collapse of Athenian Democracy founded by Solon and Pericles, considered Aristocratic Oligarchy as the best regime. This is not valid today, at least not for the civilized world. Yet, we still read Plato and Aristotle, because they had asked the questions “Why do we need laws?” and “What is real justice?” for the first time. Likewise; there is no slavery now in the modern world, but we still read St. Augustine’s books where he told why slavery was necessary and ethically right, though these books have no validity today. This is because we evaluate each book and philosopher in their own historical circumstances and we want to see and understand each step of the development of political philosophy or in other words, the development of individual rights and freedoms. We know that issues which would be even ridiculous to discuss today, such as the idea that the ruling power of kings is not divine, cost lives when it was expressed 500 years ago. We now admiringly read the philosophers’ questions where they challenged their period’s rules, which were accepted as unarguably true then. This make us think of the facts we might be unable to see or our blind spots. We feel encouraged to question the “rights” of today that everybody agrees on (which will most probably become the “wrongs” of the tomorrow). We certainly do not intend to regulate today’s social life or seek answers to today’s problems according to the books that were written centuries ago; that method is already available, we call it religion and it is definitely irrelevant for us in this discussion.

In mankind’s struggle to find the best regime, which has lasted for thousands of years, everything progresses in a relevant way and it is surprising to find out that even schools of thought which seem totally opposite are actually interrelated. It is not a coincidence that, Niccolo Machiavelli’s Prince where he made a secular interpretation on the administrative science that had been shaped by religion for thousand years at the expense of showing the ruler cruel and people with bad will, was followed by Thomas More’s Utopia, where everybody was as good as angels or the monarchic state monster disregarding individual rights in Thomas More’s Leviathan was followed by John Locke’s Second Treatise on Government which was founded on individual freedoms so wide that they formed the base for the American Constitution to be established one century later; on the contrary, this is action and reaction. Every philosopher asks the questions of his own age and prepares the intellectual context for the next philosopher to study on and ask his own questions.

Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, 1651 First Edition Book Cover /

Leviathan is the name of a mythological monster in Old-Testament; apparently Thomas Hobbes

 made the best choice to symbolize absolute monarchy.

It is not auspicious to deal with political philosophy, indeed; because it would be inevitable for a person who starts to read the history of views on state and regime, to start questioning his own believes when he recognizes that, not only even the most basic questions have not been answered precisely for centuries but also there are "rights" and "wrongs" in every shcools of thought. And maybe the most importantly, one who starts to read political philosophy will realize that some rights that were agreed on only two centuries ago are today’s wrongs, which means, the values we truly believe might become ridiculous two centuries later and one will have to replace the comfort provided by beliefs and the thought that he/she knows the rights with the uneasiness caused by skepticism. On the other hand; how nice and safe it is to believe in something which we have no doubt about its rightness, to belong to a community/party, to act in coherence with our society, to talk with slogans to walk with anthems together with millions of people like us.

Who knows, maybe a few centuries later there will be an order like Universal League of Nations embracing all free and equal people of the world instead of the countries and dogmatic beliefs in today’s sense. Let’s imagine a world where individual rights and freedoms, intellectual freedom and equality of opportunities are far beyond the present day, knowledge is shared unbelievably fast thanks to advanced technology, all world population is represented in the same parliament regardless of religion, language or nation. Would that be possible? We don’t know this, yet. Nevertheless, it would be wise to be precautious. We should think twice before supporting any notion other than widening of individual rights and freedoms for everybody. Particularly if the notion or idea we support includes terms such as “almighty”, “holy”, “glorious”, “supreme” etc., twice wouldn’t be enough, we should think ten times. The only sustainable tendency we can observe in long term in this centuries old adventure we call as political philosophy is that, the more information gets accessible, the more mankind gets free.

Click here for Turkish

History of Civil Disobedience

Do we have to obey the laws even when they are unjust? Or just the opposite, is it right to disobey unjust laws? Who can decide whether the laws of state are fair or not?.. Humanity has been unable to satisfactorily reply these questions for centuries. Here comes up the concept of civil disobedience where the citizens try to amend laws they regard to be unjust by performing events that violate them in a non-violent way. In 1849, American activist-author Henry David Thoreau mentioned about civil disobedience for the first time in history in his book named as “Resistance to civil government, civil disobedience” . Thus, he can be considered as the eponym of the term. In his book, he expressed in brief that citizens had to prioritize the voice of their conscience over the laws of state.

As it is violation of laws, civil disobedience has always been identified with anarchy, chaos and crime by the governments. However; civil disobedience is not an action against democracy or a state of law. On the opposite; it is a must for democracy and the acquisition of civil rights and it is almost as old as democracy. The first known civil disobedience in history, i.e. the Athens rebellion of 507 BC helped the emergence of today’s democracy. Consequently; democracy and civil disobedience are inseparable, it can be said that one wouldn’t emerge without the other.

Now let’s discuss the first civil obedience act known in history and emergence of democracy;
In the 6th century BC, Athenians founded an assembly under the leadership of Greek philosophers and the statesman Solon after a struggle that had lasted centuries. Though final decision was given by the oligarchic administration, the society voted in significant issues and participated in the management. In 507 BC, Isagoras seized control of management and closed the general assembly with an intention to become tyrant. The people rebelled in the evening of the day the control of management was seized and the general assembly was closed. They cornered Isagor and his Spartan soldiers in the main square of the city following a rebellion that had lasted for three days. Isagoras and his soldiers ran away to save their lives. The people, who had dismissed the tyrant, assigned the reformist statesman Cleisthenes into power and re-opened the assembly. They gave equal voting right to every citizen and gave the right of decision to the assembly exclusively and thus, they established the first democracy known in history. The history is full of thousands of rebellions before and after that event, indeed. The thing that differentiates this rebellion from others and makes it the first known civil disobedience act in history is that, it does not have any leader or an organization behind. Athenians went out to streets with a collective anger on that night when their general assembly was closed. The anger did not rise out of an organization or guidance of a rebel leader who intended to overthrow the dictator Isagoras, everybody acted on their own and went to the main square of the city. They had resisted against their brand new tyrant and his Spartan soldiers until they overthrew him and founded their own management.

 It is not always the same thing to be a good man and a good citizen.

Aristoteles

American Constitution and the abolition of slavery

American historian and author Howard Zinn said “civil disobedience and protest beyond the law is not a departure from democracy, it is absolutely essential to it”. When we look at the emergence story of the American constitution which is regarded as the world’s most liberal constitution, we can see that the very basic human rights were gained through civil disobedience acts. Foundation story of America is in fact a civil disobedience act against the British government. In 1773, Americans threw the teas into the sea from Boston port to protest against the unjust taxes taken by the colonist British. Thus, they not only founded the Boston Tea Party but also planted the seeds of an independent country.

The fugitive slave act organized in 1850 in America required that the slaves who had run away from Southern states and taken shelter in Northern states were returned back to their owners and it imposed not only a penalty fine but also imprisonment for the citizens who helped those fugitive slaves and for officers who had ignored these slaves. The Americans in Northern states who did not surrender the slaves that had run away from Southern states were also violating the laws by listening to their conscience. This was an individual civil obedience act, indeed. Many American citizens violated that law under the leadership of Thoreau (mentioned in the beginning of the article) by listening to their conscience. They helped fugitive slaves and they even hid them at their homes when necessary. This civil obedience act was the most significant step for the complete abolition of slavery.

 One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.

Martin Luther King Jr.

Martin Luther King Jr. and civil rights

Abolition of slavery in America was the first step in the long path for gaining civil rights for African Americans. This struggle continued in the following century under the leadership of Martin Luther King Jr. with non-violent civil obedience acts and reached a result. Montgomery bus firm which had been conducting discrimination gave up this attitude after Luther King’s boycott which had lasted for 13 months and discrimination imposed on the black people in buses came to an end. Luther King and his fellows entered into parks, public areas and restaurants where black people were banned from. They sat there and waited for the police to come then they got arrested without any resistance. In that way, they drew attention to the unjustness of the ban and they had these bans lifted one by one. In his non-violent civil disobedience acts Luther King took inspiration from Mahatma Gandhi who had brought the Great Britain down in that way. 

12^th March 1930, “Salt March”, Gandhi is walking to protest the salt production ban

Mahatma Gandhi and Satyagraha (insistence on truth)

Gandhi protested against the discriminative policies of the Colonist British Government by non-violent civil obedience actions and gained a definite success in the matters of equal rights and independence. Satyagraha (“insistence on truth”) is a concept found by Gandhi. I explained it by the words “insistence on truth” but actually, it is difficult to express its full meaning in just a few words. With this concept, Gandhi aimed to defeat his force-imposing enemies by good means and in calmness without using force and to make them “good”. Many years later, Martin Luther King Jr. used the English correspondence of the Satyagraha, “silent force”, in his speech “I have a dream”.

The first civil disobedience action of Turkey’s recent history; 555K

The first civil disobedience act that took place on 5^th May 1960 in Ankara Kızılay was named as “555K” as it occurred in 5^th month on 5^th day at 5 o’clock in Kızılay. University students gathered in Kızılay to protest against the Democrat Party which had been tensing up the country with their oppressive policies, they did not clear away despite all the warnings and they resisted the police.

Rumour has it that, Prime Minister of the period, Adnan Menderes who had come to Kızılay Square for DP meeting, found himself among the protesters all of a sudden. When Menderes asked “What do you want?”, ex leader of CHP (Republican People’s Party) Deniz Baykal who was as student then, collared prime minister and shouted “We want freedom!”. And Menderes gave his popular reply:

 “You are collaring the prime minister, is there a freedom greater than that?”

A short time after 555K action, the first military intervention of the republic took place on 17^th May 1960. Cemal Süreyya, who also joined the action that took place on 5^th May 1960, wrote a poem named as 555K. The poem passed to the youth resisting for the future of their country many years later and it became hope for them;

“We are talking in low voice now,

In silence we are gathering together and clearing away

Our mums are steeping tea for the coming happy days

And our darling is putting flowers into the vase

Quietly again we are going to work in the mornings

Yet it doesn’t mean these will go on like that

Now we are coming side by side and mounting up

When we chant the song of freedom together

Then nobody can save you, not even the Gods.”

Cemal Süreyya, 1960

 

Click here for Turkish

 

 

The short history of democracy

With the end of Bronze Age, in the 10^th century B.C., the kingdoms surrounding the Aegean Sea collapsed and the Greek city states governed by constitutional monarchy and oligarchy were established instead. In these city states the kings had either a very few power or completely a symbolic position. This oligarchic regime shared by a few noble families within the framework of a constitution was clogged in war-like crisis situations due to the conflict of power among the families. In order to prevent management blockage during these crisis, the ruler named “tyrant” selected for a temporary period and holding all authority; legislative, executive and judicial powers in one hand, were designated. However, as it can be easily guessed, having seized the power once, tyrants did not give up these powers on their own initiative after the crisis or war ended and generally they retained the power until they were overthrown by the oligarchic structures. Greek city states switched between these two regimes for several centuries; absolute monarchy in which tyrants who took control in difficult times and the oligarchy where noble families who overthrew the tyrants and then struggled for power among themselves. But during this whole process, Greeks kept their constitution which provided the authority even to tyrants and improved it step by step.

King Theseus, Founder of Athens; semi-god and semi-king receiving the ruling power from the divine forces.

Theseus, Victor of the Minotaur, Charles -Édouard Chaise, 1791

When it comes to the 6th Century BC, oligarchic system enhanced from a few noble families to a dozen of them sharing the power with the growth of the economies and the cities. In 590 BC, 9 senators called as “Archon” and each of whom selected from the noble families for only one year ruled the city-state of Athens. Decisions were taken in the general assembly with the participation of the noble. Although the power is shifted from one absolute ruler who rules with divine forces and limitless authority to a few noble families sharing the power within the framework of a constitution, yet it is too early to mention about the public’s will and the democracy. In the meanwhile, Athens underwent into a major economic crisis and the great statesman, Solon who was one of the “seven wises” was selected in order to overcome the difficulties resulting from the economy which was on the verge of stopping.

Library of American Congress, Thomas Jefferson Hall.
Solon sculpture. Frederick Wellington Ruckstull

The very basis of the system that brought Athens on the verge of a social and economic collapse was “the debt slavery"; the only way to borrow money for an Athenian was to put up himself and his family as collateral as slaves in case of a failure in paying the debt. As a result of the debt, thousands of Athenians became slaves, agriculture decreased and famine came out. Solon took courageous decisions and not only he removed the debt slavery system, but also by cancelling all the current debts, opened a clean slate for all Athenians. While Athens got rid of the crisis due to the slavery and debt thanks to Solon's courageous decisions, Solon moves his reforms a step further by taking advantage of this public support, sowed the first seeds of democracy in the sense that we know today; and then by redefining the aristocracy by wealth and richness rather than nobility, he expanded the number of the ruling families by adding the ones who enriched by trade. Secondly, he opened the general assembly i.e. the parliament to all the citizens of Athens. Although the main ruler class was still aristocracy which was defined by wealth, the people of Athens could now vote in the parliament on important matters and even act as a jury in important cases. This form of public participation had never been seen in history before. Solon, who solved the economic problems, opened the oligarchic rule to much wider masses by opening aristocracy to merchant families and then by opening the general assembly to the public, he established the first known public participation in the history despite being limited. After completing his reforms, Solon relinquished his power and left Athens, however right before leaving Athens, he asked Athenians to promise to hold his system for 10 years. Yet in less than five years, Peisistratos, Solon’s own cousin, seized control and declared his tyranny. Although Peisistratos was a tyrant, the historians describe his 20 years rule as “fair and good”. However, his sons Hippias and Hipparchus who seized power after his death were cruel tyrants. This situation lasted until Cleisthenes seized control. Cleisthenes is known as the father of democracy today and was a member of a noble family from Athens.

Harmodius and Aristogeiton were two Athenian heroes who killed cruel tyrant Hipparchus in the city center and went down in history as tyrant-killers (Tyrannicides). Their statues were put up in the main square of Athens after the foundation of democracy.

The First Civil Disobedience Act in the History, BC 507 Athens Rebellion

Since Cleisthenes was more interested in reforms rather than power, he opened the general assembly that was closed for a long time to the public again and aristocrat families who reacted to this were united under the leadership of Isagoras. In 507 B.C., Isagoras staged a coup against Cleisthenes with the support of Spartans and by sending Cleisthenes away from Athens, he seized the power. Isagoras closed down the general assembly and gave all the authority to a few aristocrat families. A very bad surprise was waiting for Isagoras who had seized the power with Spartan soldiers and exiled Cleisthenes; Athenians whose council had been closed were so angry that they went out into the streets and rebelled. The history is full of thousands of rebellions but the thing that distinguishes this rebellion from the others and made it the first civil disobedience act is that it didn’t have a leader. Without being organized by a rebellious leader, the Athenians went out into the streets with a massive anger and compressed the Spartan Soldiers in the main square of the city. At the end of the rebellion that lasted for three days, the Spartan soldiers and Isagoras had to leave Athens to save their lives. Athenians opened their general assembly again, and first of all, they called Cleisthenes back and gave him the full authority to continue his reforms. After this event, Cleisthenes would establish the first known democracy with all its proper functions and make the Athenians the first public who manages themselves in the history, and he will went down in history as the father of democracy.

The Birth of Democracy

Cleisthenes gave the right to vote in the general assembly to all the Athenian citizens, regardless of being rich or poor, noble or commoner without any discrimination. Archons turned into a consultancy council, the parliament became the only authority. In order to prevent tyranny, Cleisthenes invented a policy named Ostracism; Athenians had the right to exile a person whom they determined by voting. This system sent the person who strengthen excessively to exile and functions as an insurance to avoid a possible tyranny.

Spartans, the biggest rivals and neighbors of Athenians provided the order of their own city-states by using an excessive education-indoctrination system and by military policy. They thought that this invention of Athenians called as democracy is a naïve relish to end tragically in a short time but they were completely wrong. While Spartans advanced with militant citizens who were looking for ways to escape at first opportunity and kept unity under pressure with aggressive war policies, were fading away, Athens became the super power of his era.

Cleisthenes, the father of the democracy

Anna Christoforidis, 2004

 Click here for Turkish